"It just turned out that our original formalizations of what we mean when we say 'intelligent' have changed, matured an become deeper (despite the bloviations of Mead). We now know that intelligence is a lot more than doing any of the above things."
Precisely why I agreed that yes the "goalposts have been moved." Intelligence has been shown to be a far more complex phenomenon than chess mastery, word games and such.* I do not presume to have a rigorous definition, but then I'm not one of the AI messiahs.
Back to your Fusion example. What I referred to with AI predictions is similar to the outlook for Fusion. The "speculation" by Fusion physicists and the Minskys and Moravecs (whom I mentioned specificly) HAS been way off the mark. I'd score the AI guys closer though.
The future is not what it used to be.
Space/Science » in reply to Hmmmm, Its not sounding to me like you know what you are talking about
re: Hmmmm, Its not sounding to me like you know what you are talking about
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Quantum Mechanics Boondoggles, AI's Total Failure...The Notable Carver Mead Speaks
- That critique was so stupid, its an argument against (a particular) Human Intelligence, not a critique of Artificial Intelligence research
- Fruit fly is extraordinarily bad analogy for "intelligence"
- re: Quantum Mechanics Boondoggles, AI's Total Failure...The Notable Carver Mead Speaks
- Fruitflies, I am told, suck at chess.
- Nervous systems don't work like computers.
- Yeah, but...